Last Updated on April 28, 2022 by LawEuro
The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention). Some of the applicants also raised complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MILÁK AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 2130/20 and 10 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 September 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Milák and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention). Some of the applicants also raised complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014 and Lakatos v. Hungary, no. 21786/15, 26 June 2018, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some of the applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of Article 5 § 4 the Convention in the light of its findings in, among many authorities, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gál, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 September 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Erik Wennerström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
_______
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Length of detention | Other complaints under well‑established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 2130/20
17/12/2019 |
Zoltán Róbert MILÁK
1995 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
17/07/2017 to
28/11/2019 |
2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The courts examined the applicant’s detention belatedly on multiple occasions. | 4,200 |
| 2. | 46758/20
01/10/2020 |
Gábor Viktor FAUR
1975 |
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest |
30/07/2018 to
02/02/2021 |
2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 4 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory six‑month review was carried out with a delay of 48 days. The obligatory one‑year review was carried out with a delay of 33 days. | 4,600 |
| 3. | 46760/20
02/10/2020 |
Richárd ÁRMÁN
1979 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
28/03/2019 to
24/09/2020 |
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 28 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – On prolongations of detention, the Regional Court delivered a decision more than 2 months after the first instance decision, and it dealt with another appeal after 2 months. The obligatory 6-month and 12‑month reviews took place respectively with a 72- and a 68-day delay. | 2,700 |
| 4. | 46805/20
07/10/2020 |
Roland BANGÓ
1998 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
06/08/2018 to
20/04/2021 |
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 15 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory six‑month review was carried out with a delay of 20 days. The obligatory 1-year and 1.5-years reviews were not carried out on time. | 4,900 |
| 5. | 48904/20
21/10/2020 |
Lajos KOVÁCS
1993 |
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest |
04/03/2019 to
19/10/2020 |
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The Regional Court reviewed the detention appeals with 1.5- and 2-month delays. | 3,000 |
| 6. | 51593/20
03/11/2020 |
Gábor GASPAROVICS
1996 |
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest |
13/12/2017 to
30/11/2020 |
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory one‑year review was carried out with a delay of 95 days. | 5,100 |
| 7. | 54284/20
20/11/2020 |
Fabio Daniel ANTUNES LOURENCO
1993 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
12/07/2018 to
01/07/2020 |
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory 6‑month review of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention took place belatedly. | 3,400 |
| 8. | 595/21
22/12/2020 |
György WEITZ
1978 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
16/10/2018 to
22/10/2020 |
2 year(s) and 7 day(s)
|
2,700 | |
| 9. | 5078/21
13/01/2021 |
Kornél PITZ
1982 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
06/02/2019 to
13/10/2020 |
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s) | 2,500 | |
| 10. | 5080/21
14/01/2021 |
Tibor László VETÉSI
1963 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
05/04/2019 to
10/12/2020 |
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory 6‑ month review was not carried out at all. An appeal of the applicant was decided with a delay of 3.5 months. | 3,200 |
| 11. | 10036/21
08/02/2021 |
Imre POKORNYI
1997 |
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest |
03/12/2018
pending |
More than 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s)
|
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The applicant’s appeals were decided upon with a delay of over 2 months on three different occasions. | 4,700 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply